Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.

I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.


But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?

I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[WinterBorn]

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

Daniel, what is your education background and your career history? Just a general idea, if you don't mind?

reading comprehension.

And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise. And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. The Federalist Number Forty

The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all. The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[WinterBorn]

I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.

I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.


But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?

I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

Hold them responsible? How?

And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean? Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.

And as for private gun ownership, what would you do? I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind. Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense? For sport?

 

[danielpalos]

The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

Daniel, what is your education background and your career history? Just a general idea, if you don't mind?

reading comprehension.

And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise. And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. The Federalist Number Forty

The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all. The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?

 

[danielpalos]

I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.

I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.


But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?

I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

Hold them responsible? How?

And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean? Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.

And as for private gun ownership, what would you do? I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind. Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense? For sport?

Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout. And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, what is your education background and your career history? Just a general idea, if you don't mind?

reading comprehension.

And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise. And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. The Federalist Number Forty

The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all. The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?

It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms. But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[WinterBorn]

I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.

I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.


But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?

I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

Hold them responsible? How?

And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean? Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.

And as for private gun ownership, what would you do? I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind. Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense? For sport?

Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout. And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)

So you allow the states to create their own gun laws, independent of the federal gov't?

And what would red states need to be bailed out of that would require a militia?

 

[danielpalos]

reading comprehension.

And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise. And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. The Federalist Number Forty

The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all. The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?

It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms. But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you really really believe that?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Only the security of a free State is of any concern, in our Second Amendment.

It is a States' sovereign right, expressly declared.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.

I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.


But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?

I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

Hold them responsible? How?

And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean? Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.

And as for private gun ownership, what would you do? I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind. Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense? For sport?

Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout. And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)

So you allow the states to create their own gun laws, independent of the federal gov't?

And what would red states need to be bailed out of that would require a militia?

They already do; I would merely hold them accountable for excess above any fixed Standard, I may convince our "Congressionals", may be necessary and proper to faithfully execute.

I believe elements of State defense forces (militia) should be tasked with supporting "first responders" to any natural disasters that may or may not cross State lines.

 

[LOki]

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

Daniel, what is your education background and your career history? Just a general idea, if you don't mind?

reading comprehension.

And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise. And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. The Federalist Number Forty

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.

The preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[LOki]

And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise. And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. The Federalist Number Forty

The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all. The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?

It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms. But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you really really believe that?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Only the security of a free State is of any concern, in our Second Amendment.

It is a States' sovereign right, expressly declared.

I see a States' dependency expressly declared, but you say otherwise.

What exact "States' sovereign right" is "expressly declared."

 

[WinterBorn]

I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.


But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?

I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

Hold them responsible? How?

And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean? Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.

And as for private gun ownership, what would you do? I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind. Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense? For sport?

Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout. And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)

So you allow the states to create their own gun laws, independent of the federal gov't?

And what would red states need to be bailed out of that would require a militia?

They already do; I would merely hold them accountable for excess above any fixed Standard, I may convince our "Congressionals", may be necessary and proper to faithfully execute.

I believe elements of State defense forces (militia) should be tasked with supporting "first responders" to any natural disasters that may or may not cross State lines.

So you will have a militia (National Guard). But will your system allow citizens to own guns? Or will all those guns be kept in armories? And what of self defense or sporting uses?

 

[danielpalos]

The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

Daniel, what is your education background and your career history? Just a general idea, if you don't mind?

reading comprehension.

And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise. And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. The Federalist Number Forty

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.

The preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

The prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Is the Intent and purpose.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. The Federalist Number Forty

The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all. The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?

It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms. But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you really really believe that?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Only the security of a free State is of any concern, in our Second Amendment.

It is a States' sovereign right, expressly declared.

I see a States' dependency expressly declared, but you say otherwise.

What exact "States' sovereign right" is "expressly declared."

One that cannot be Infringed upon by the general government.

 

[danielpalos]

I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

Hold them responsible? How?

And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean? Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.

And as for private gun ownership, what would you do? I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind. Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense? For sport?

Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout. And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)

So you allow the states to create their own gun laws, independent of the federal gov't?

And what would red states need to be bailed out of that would require a militia?

They already do; I would merely hold them accountable for excess above any fixed Standard, I may convince our "Congressionals", may be necessary and proper to faithfully execute.

I believe elements of State defense forces (militia) should be tasked with supporting "first responders" to any natural disasters that may or may not cross State lines.

So you will have a militia (National Guard). But will your system allow citizens to own guns? Or will all those guns be kept in armories? And what of self defense or sporting uses?

Two separate issues; natural rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms, acquire and posses.

 

[LOki]

Daniel, what is your education background and your career history? Just a general idea, if you don't mind?

reading comprehension.

And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise. And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. The Federalist Number Forty

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.

The preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

The prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Is the Intent and purpose.

You have never demonstrated that, but it remains irrelevant... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

 

[WinterBorn]

Hold them responsible? How?

And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean? Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.

And as for private gun ownership, what would you do? I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind. Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense? For sport?

Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout. And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)

So you allow the states to create their own gun laws, independent of the federal gov't?

And what would red states need to be bailed out of that would require a militia?

They already do; I would merely hold them accountable for excess above any fixed Standard, I may convince our "Congressionals", may be necessary and proper to faithfully execute.

I believe elements of State defense forces (militia) should be tasked with supporting "first responders" to any natural disasters that may or may not cross State lines.

So you will have a militia (National Guard). But will your system allow citizens to own guns? Or will all those guns be kept in armories? And what of self defense or sporting uses?

Two separate issues; natural rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms, acquire and posses.

Then what you have described is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that is aimed at giving the states more rights or power. Nothing else in the Bill of Rights does anything close.

So, under your version of the US, the states can legally disarm its population? No thanks. Not what the founders intended at all.

 

[LOki]

The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all. The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?

It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms. But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you really really believe that?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Only the security of a free State is of any concern, in our Second Amendment.

It is a States' sovereign right, expressly declared.

I see a States' dependency expressly declared, but you say otherwise.

What exact "States' sovereign right" is "expressly declared."

One that cannot be Infringed upon by the general government.

What exact "States' sovereign right" is "expressly declared."

Please identify it specifically.

 

[westwall]

Daniel, what is your education background and your career history? Just a general idea, if you don't mind?

reading comprehension.

And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise. And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. The Federalist Number Forty

The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all. The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?

Read your history. The "militia" was every able bodied man (yes they were sexist back then) between the ages of 18 and 60. There are two types of militia, the organized and unorganized. All people are members of the unorganized militia. The organized militias are the various State Guards, and of course the National Guard which is a Federal construct.

One of the oldest organized militia groups in existence is the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston but it is a civilian group. Not governmental.

 

[westwall]

And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise. And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. The Federalist Number Forty

The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all. The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?

It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms. But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you really really believe that?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Only the security of a free State is of any concern, in our Second Amendment.

It is a States' sovereign right, expressly declared.

Wow you have a very poor understanding of the English language.